My Poorly Armed Rabble is stronger than it should

[pinwolf]

20190618082232_1.jpg (472.14 KiB) Viewed 3255 times

Ok. It's only one point above the maximum, but I would like to know the explanation for this.
Is this a bug or the result of some occult number crunching of the rules system?

[rbodleyscott]

Possibly a rounding error.

[PDiFolco]

Well these units don't stay at full size for long

[pinwolf]

Actually it's their purpose to stay at full size in the rear far away from the frontline all the time.
In this way they add to the percentage share of all the forces commited to the battle at a low cost.
When units at the front are routing it has now less effect on the army morale at whole.

[PDiFolco]

Actually it's their purpose to stay at full size in the rear far away from the frontline all the time.
In this way they add to the percentage share of all the forces commited to the battle at a low cost.
When units at the front are routing it has now less effect on the army morale at whole.

I was assuming that rout % was calculated using unit value not nr of men.. they don't count much then!
Plus if any enemy cav catches or fire at them they're lost....

[rbodleyscott]

Actually it's their purpose to stay at full size in the rear far away from the frontline all the time.
In this way they add to the percentage share of all the forces commited to the battle at a low cost.
When units at the front are routing it has now less effect on the army morale at whole.

I was assuming that rout % was calculated using unit value not nr of men.. they don't count much then!
Plus if any enemy cav catches or fire at them they're lost....

It is based on the size of the unit rather than the points value, otherwise it would be viable to use cheap units as suicide troops to buy time with little adverse consequence. (You can of course still attempt to buy time with cheap troops, but not with impunity).

This is a deliberate design feature.

[PDiFolco]

Actually it's their purpose to stay at full size in the rear far away from the frontline all the time.
In this way they add to the percentage share of all the forces commited to the battle at a low cost.
When units at the front are routing it has now less effect on the army morale at whole.

I was assuming that rout % was calculated using unit value not nr of men.. they don't count much then!
Plus if any enemy cav catches or fire at them they're lost....

It is based on the size of the unit rather than the points value, otherwise it would be viable to use cheap units as suicide troops to buy time with little adverse consequence. (You can of course still attempt to buy time with cheap troops, but not with impunity).

This is a deliberate design feature.

Ok, I had all wrong and stand corrected now!
But don't they then mostly create a cheap Rout buffer instead of being grindmeat? it's a bit gamey as well..

[rbodleyscott]

I was assuming that rout % was calculated using unit value not nr of men.. they don't count much then!
Plus if any enemy cav catches or fire at them they're lost....

It is based on the size of the unit rather than the points value, otherwise it would be viable to use cheap units as suicide troops to buy time with little adverse consequence. (You can of course still attempt to buy time with cheap troops, but not with impunity).

This is a deliberate design feature.

Ok, I had all wrong and stand corrected now!
But don't they then mostly create a cheap Rout buffer instead of being grindmeat? it's a bit gamey as well..

True, but on balance we feel that is more realistic than the alternative.

[MVP7]

To me rout buffer seems more realistic than throw-away infantry. At least some "barbarian" armies had non-combatants acting as cheering squad and spectators. Some high medieval peasant infantry probably had pretty much similar role in practice. When there have been very low quality units in ancient/medieval armies they have typically not been used as cannon fodder but reserves. The sight of low quality troops getting routed would probably have very harmful effect on morale of the rest of the army.

[PDiFolco]

To me rout buffer seems more realistic than throw-away infantry. At least some "barbarian" armies had non-combatants acting as cheering squad and spectators. Some high medieval peasant infantry probably had pretty much similar role in practice. When there have been very low quality units in ancient/medieval armies they have typically not been used as cannon fodder but reserves. The sight of low quality troops getting routed would probably have very harmful effect on morale of the rest of the army.

IMHO it should have been the reverse eg troops were demoralized when they saw their elite corps rout, not much when it was crap rabble...

[rbodleyscott]

To me rout buffer seems more realistic than throw-away infantry. At least some "barbarian" armies had non-combatants acting as cheering squad and spectators. Some high medieval peasant infantry probably had pretty much similar role in practice. When there have been very low quality units in ancient/medieval armies they have typically not been used as cannon fodder but reserves. The sight of low quality troops getting routed would probably have very harmful effect on morale of the rest of the army.

IMHO it should have been the reverse eg troops were demoralized when they saw their elite corps rout, not much when it was crap rabble...

Troops were potentially demoralised if they saw any friends routed, regardless of the quality of those troops. Fear is infectious.

That was why it was exceptionally rare to put the worst troops out in front as cannon fodder.

[Geffalrus]

I feel like it's not completely based on size since a unit of 20 elephants definitely contribute more than 1% score.

[rbodleyscott]

I feel like it's not completely based on size since a unit of 20 elephants definitely contribute more than 1% score.

It is based on UnitSize, not TotalMen, Elephants have a UnitSize of 400. They then (like cavalry) get a 3/2 multiplier.

This means they are the same % for rout purposes as a 600 UnitSize infantry unit (480 men) - or a 400 UnitSize cavalry unit (240 men).

i.e. For rout % purposes: 480 infantry = 240 cavalry = 20 elephants.